2022 (10) TMI 320

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....with the Service Tax Department and are providing services under the 'Works Contract Services', 'Supply of Tangible Goods' and 'Supply of Manpower'. The appellant have filed the return (ST-3 and 4) and also paid the admitted taxes. Based on third party data in the Form No. 26AS as compared with the appellant's balance sheet and ST-3 returns, it appeared to Revenue that appellant have short paid service tax amount of Rs.6,23,085/- for the period 01.10.2014 to 30.06.2017, under the aforementioned three heads of service. Accordingly, show cause notice dated 24.06.2020 was issued invoking the extended period of limitation. The amount short paid was demanded under the different heads (allowing credit for tax already paid) as follows:- Sl. No.....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... appropriated, which amount already been deposited. 4. Being aggrieved, the appellant preferred appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) who was pleased to reject the appeal upholding the order-in-original. Being aggrieved, the appellant is before this Tribunal. 5. Learned Counsel for the appellant urges that admittedly in the facts and circumstances, the transactions on which service tax as short paid have been raised, are duly recorded in the books of accounts and record maintained by the appellant. Admittedly, the appellant has paid substantial tax and filed the ST-3 returns. The tax demanded by the impugned order by way of short paid, which is due to calculation error, is also interpretational in nature. He further urges that admi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....umstances of the case, the transaction of input service of SOTG is duly recorded in the books of accounts. The appellant have received the service with supporting invoices and payment have been made in the regular course of business mainly through bank transfer as is evident from the copy of ledger account of the service provider maintained by the appellant in the books of account. The amount paid are also reflected in the bank account of the appellant, thus, the genuineness of the transaction is established. Admittedly, it is not the case of Revenue that appellant is claiming the credit second time. Under these facts and circumstances, I hold that benefit of cenvat credit cannot be denied to the appellant following the precedent ruling of ....